This debate will concentrate on the topic of propaganda in the media, the argument will be:

Has propaganda in the US media created limitations on democracy?

I will be arguing that through the creation of an uninformed electorate, democracy in the United States has been obstructed. This is evident in the selection of representatives who advocate policies that are contradictory to the best interest and/or opinion of the voter.

I leave the challenger to expand on my brief statement and present the first argument.

Definitions:
-Propaganda: Information of a biased or misleading nature used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
-Media: The main means of mass information. (e.g. radio, television, newspapers, and the Internet) regarded collectively.
-Democracy: A system of government by the whole population or all eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.

Note: All sources must be cited, sources must be objective and unbiased.

"Through the creation of an uninformed electorate, democracy in the United States has been obstructed. This is evident in the selection of representatives who advocate policies that are contradictory to the best interest and/or opinion of the voter."

The best interests of the voter do not and should not matter in a democracy. The opinions of the voters are far more important. For Pro to win, he must show that media propaganda is causing people to vote for candidates that they disapprove of (meaning the candidates' approval ratings are less than fifty percent). I will argue that propaganda actually helps democracy (meaning it improves candidates' approval ratings). A priori, it is expected that if voters have no knowledge of the current issues (ie they are uninformed), winning candidates would receive a 50% approval rating on average. If propaganda both for and against candidates did increase voters' knowledge of current issues, then it would be expected that the average approval ratings of representatives would increase to above 50%. According to (1), the average approval rating is above 50%. One possible explanation is that propaganda for candidates counteracted propaganda against these candidates, resulting in a more interested and more informed public that voted for candidates that they approved more of.

Hypothetically, if propaganda were to banned, I believe that voters would become less informed, limiting democracy. Without ads, whose purpose it is to draw people's attention to important issues, how would the public hear important information about candidates or about current issues?

"Note: All sources must be cited, sources must be objective and unbiased."

Unless Pro can present more objective, less biased sources, my sources, even if they are not as "objective and unbiased" as possible, must be preferred over no sources.

I feel as though my topic may have been a bit too ambiguous, perhaps it should have been written differently. The implied subject of the topic would have been better declared as an expansion on Noam Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent"; which was an analysis on the news media of the United States. Summarizing that it was an effective and powerful ideological institution, used to carry out a system-supportive propaganda function by various principles listed in his treatise. This debate will not revolve around Chomskys theory; it merely serves as a starting point to avoid drifting into the fog. To rebut my opponent"s claim, "the best interests of the voter do not and should not matter in a democracy", a statement verging on the edge of naivety, the best interest of the voter forms their opinion. Since we cannot possibly know the specific reasons why every individual voted for their respective candidate we must assume the logical incentive of income. For instance, an eligible voter earning $30,000 a year with no post-secondary education would logically vote for the candidate adhering to their best interests. This is where the separation occurs, the phenomena in the US at present is that the least educated, lowest income earning citizens support candidates who advocate policies opposite of their best interests. This point is merely a reflection; the role played by the mainstream media is what this debate is focused on.

Glenn Greenwald published an article "Limiting Democracy: The American Media's World View, and Ours" in which he argues, "Most of us are willing to talk about political propaganda and the way in which political opinions are manipulated as long as that means somebody elses opinions". He goes on to argue that in general we are all aware of media manipulation we do however, avoid reflecting that it could be ourselves that have been manipulated or propagandized. This occurs through a series of self-reinforcements which confirm our pre-existing bias. For instance, an individual watching Fox News observing a negative story concerning a Democratic Politician, that individual is likely to believe without question the "information" he is presented and thus not likely to seek further research from a separate source. This is evident by the sheer amount of falsities factcheck.org and others are confronted with. For my point to be clear and concise I will not have to prove whether or not a particular candidate"s approval rating is low, as this is itself an example of manufactured consent. Rather the use of misinformation and rhetoric to improve perception of specific policies.

For example, during the presidential campaign Mitt Romney proclaimed that under Obama, individuals would not have to work for a job, the government would just send them their welfare checks. This was determined to be false; Obama attempted to allow states the opportunity to apply for a waiver to revise work requirements for welfare recipients, a waiver in which not a single state has requested. This was, quite simply a lie; however, it was used deliberately to misinform voters. The issues are entirely non-partisan as Obama himself is guilty of misinforming the public; the solution is not to ban news media but to enforce some level of accountability to providing accurate, objective information. In an effort to inform the public and not manipulate them as is presently the case.

"To rebut my opponent"s claim, "the best interests of the voter do not and should not matter in a democracy", a statement verging on the edge of naivety, the best interest of the voter forms their opinion."

Incorrect. For example, some people want to smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol even though they know that cigarettes are harmful to their health and best interests. A less controversial example is that many poor people choose to gamble or buy lottery tickets even though these are against their best interest. In America, people have the freedom to pursue happiness however they please, even if it involves going against their best interest. Just because voters sometimes act in their best interests does not mean they should always have to. However, by definition, voters must and ought always act according to their opinions and decisions. The only possible problem is when voters change their mind after voting, undermining the democratic process and causing the will of the people to be misrepresented.

"Since we cannot possibly know the specific reasons why every individual voted for their respective candidate we must assume the logical incentive of income."

Incorrect. This is what approval ratings are for. Assuming that income is the primary incentive for choosing one candidate over the other is not at all "logical"; in fact, I argue that it is illogical (1).

"For instance, an eligible voter earning $30,000 a year with no post-secondary education would logically vote for the candidate adhering to their best interests."

Nope. Not at all. It is trivially obvious that "eligible voter[s] earning $30,000 a year with no post-secondary education" include members of parties supporting and opposing the group's best interest. Income and education level are not the only voting factors that matter. Pro needs to provide proof of this assertion.

"This is where the separation occurs, the phenomena in the US at present is that the least educated, lowest income earning citizens support candidates who advocate policies opposite of their best interests."

Just because you think that these candidates advocate policies opposite of their constituents' best interests does not mean that they do. It is clear that what these so-called "least educated, lowest income earning citizens" want differs from what you want. However, I contend that these individuals know what they want better than you or I or anyone else does. This contention is supported by the fact that most of the time, approval ratings are above 50% (0), meaning that more often than not, the people as a whole (including "least educated, lowest income earning citizens") know what they want."

"This occurs through a series of self-reinforcements which confirm our pre-existing bias."

Confirming our pre-existing biases is a good thing. For example, if a Republican voter was not convinced to vote Republican by propaganda on Fox News and instead decided to flip a coin, resulting in him voting for a Democrat, he would be more likely to disapprove of the Democrat (President) than he would be likely to disapprove of a Republican (President). Voting Republican would better express his true beliefs and opinions.

"For my point to be clear and concise I will not have to prove whether or not a particular candidate"s approval rating is low, as this is itself an example of manufactured consent."

Nope. A candidate's approval rating is not "manufactured"; it is determined through mathematically sound polls that accurately and democratically reflect the will of the people (within a margin of error). Something to think about: a President has never ever been removed from office (by impeachment).

"Rather the use of misinformation and rhetoric to improve perception of specific policies."

This is my whole point. So-called "misinformation and rhetoric" (propaganda) is good because it improves public perception of specific policies, unifying the country.

"This was determined to be false. [...] This was, quite simply a lie [...] used deliberately to misinform voters. [...] The solution is [...] to enforce some level of accountability to providing accurate, objective information. In an effort to inform the public and not manipulate them as is presently the case."

First off, why do you care about truthfulness/deceit and intention? Nowhere is the tenets of democracy is hyperbole outlawed or intentions regulated. People are free to think and believe whatever they want and to act deliberately or spontaneously. Secondly, what is the problem for which a solution is needed? Thirdly, what is wrong with manipulating the public, if the public wants to be manipulated?

In conclusion, if the people really care, then they can vote in candidates that are transparent and truthful and vote out ones that are not. They can also pass laws and amend the constitution. However, this is unrelated to the alleged harmful effects of propaganda on democracy, which Pro has failed to show exist.

As this debate is focused on the role of propaganda perpetrated by the mainstream media in the US, I would encourage Con to either read Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent" or simply read a short summary on its plot. Proof is not needed since I made no such claim that income and education were the only voting factors that "matter". I again encourage Con to remain on topic, debating semantics in a claim meant only to elaborate on the topic of this particular debate convolutes the overall purpose.

Confirming pre-existing bias leads to the formation of opinions void of factual information, thus an uninformed electorate is born. The argument in which this topic resides is the misinformation spread by the mainstream media, if an individual votes Republican and is bombarded with positive news segments manipulating the voter into believing the candidate is doing well, he's more likely to appoint him/her a positive approval score. There was no mention of the methodology of surveying, analyzing, and summarizing approval polls, this is again entirely off topic.

"This is my whole point. So-called "misinformation and rhetoric"(propaganda) is good because it improves public perception of specific policies, unifying the country."

To the credit of Con this is the first argument on topic, since it is entirely based on personal opinion and not reinforced by logical reasoning or sources indicating this avenue of thought to be valid, it cannot be taken as a satisfactory argument. US citizens are free to think and believe as they choose, I will assume "people" is in reference to them or possibly individuals residing in democratic nations.

"...what is wrong with manipulating the public, if the public wants to be manipulated?"

This too is a logical fallacy and does not constitute a sound or valid argument. Hyperbole is certainly not regulated neither is lying, this is the issue: if the organizations appointed with the responsibility of reporting factual information have been and continue to be observed reporting misinformation then they are quite obviously not informing the public. They are systematically manipulating the electorate to affirm their beliefs and to agree with their contradictions and biased arguments. This is done by censoring the full depth of the facts: i.e., creating their own current events by selectively editing facts that would refute their argument (1). By the post hoc, ergo propter hoc reasoning used by Con earlier; they would be dividing the country.

I'd like to remind Con that there are two more rounds to present arguments supporting his position that the mainstream media has not impeded democracy. Brian Britt published an article "Manufacturing Consent or Purloined Dissent?" arguing that the presence of various online sources of news media, readily available to the public allow voters to become more informed than years past. This article is poorly written and not strongly supported by facts; yet, it is an example of an argument against the notion of propaganda in the media.

Though Con has expressed his agreement that propaganda (eg: information of a biased or misleading nature) in the media does exist, he expressed so as a positive occurrence, thus Con did not present an argument in favour of my original claim. As is the case I would encourage Con to deviate from the approval ratings argument, they are not relevant to this particular debate.

Democracy resides on the simple notion of eligible individuals casting votes for the candidate whom they believe to be better able to deal with issues that are relevant to them and to the constituency. If those voters are not presented with factual information their decision making process is impeded thereby limiting democracy. Earlier Con mentioned the results of a ban on media, "I believe that voters would become less informed, limiting democracy"; while this is certainly self-evident what is less overtly obvious is the scope of the misinformation presented by the mainstream media (2). Misinformation is defined as: false or inaccurate which is deliberately intended to deceive, deception through inaccurate information is limiting democracy. Yet it is so highly efficient that the occurrence of a self-referential process is continuously reinforcing the ideal that all other sources of information are inadequate or unreliable (1).

The topic is "has propaganda in the US media created limitations on democracy?" and not has propaganda created a less informed electorate. By definition, propaganda is designed to misinform people. Thus, I fully acknowledge that propaganda can result in a less informed electorate (it is very hard to argue the opposite). However, in addition to showing that propaganda can misinform people, Pro must show that it misinforms them in a way that limits democracy. I suggested that one way Pro could show this is by using approval rating polls -- for democracy to malfunction, less then half of the people must approve of elected officials. Pro does not have to use approval polls, but he must show this in some way otherwise Con wins the debate.

My arguments have been that
1. People do not always act or want to act in their best interests
2. Acting against one's best interests is not incompatible with democracy
3. Voting for a candidate that one does not approve of (even if voting for the candidate is in one's best interest) is incompatible with democracy
4. Approval ratings are a good indicator of whether people who voted for candidates actually supported the candidates that they voted for
5. According to approval ratings, people have actually supported the candidates that they voted for
6. It follows that propaganda has furthered the goal of democracy or at the very least, it has not harmed or limited democracy.
7. Thus the resolution is negated

Pro must dispute one or more of the seven arguments otherwise Con wins by default.

~~~Pro's arguments:~~~

"Proof is not needed since I made no such claim that income and education were the only voting factors that "matter"."

If income and education are not the only voting factors that matter, then surely Pro will agree that we cannot assume the logical incentive of income. In other words, some people value certain things more than they ought to and act contrary to what is in their best interests. This is point 1.

In confirming pre-existing bias, propaganda misinforms only people who want to be misinformed and are looking for an excuse to be misinformed. People without a pre-existing bias will be unaffected by the propaganda from both sides, which will effectively cancel each other out. Again, only those who want to be misinformed will be misinformed. This is not contrary to the principles of democracy and is reflected in approval polls. If the individual cares about the truthfulness of the elect, he can and will go to factchecker.org or a comparable site and disapprove of lying officials.

Thus, positive approval scores are ALWAYS good. People being satisfied with the status quo is never a problem (in a democracy). If some people have a problem with propaganda, then they will disapprove of officials that employ or support propaganda, which will be reflected in approval polls. I am glad that Pro agrees that polls are accurate and do democratically represent the will of the people.

"This is my whole point. So-called "misinformation and rhetoric"(propaganda) is good because it improves public perception of specific policies, unifying the country." Source: Nazi Germany (bit.ly/V2FaMD).

""...what is wrong with manipulating the public, if the public wants to be manipulated?" This too is a logical fallacy and does not constitute a sound or valid argument"

How is this a logical fallacy or an invalid argument? Democracy decrees that the will of the people ought be instated.

"Hyperbole is certainly not regulated neither is lying, this is the issue"

Actually, they are regulated (oaths, trials, etc).

"this is the issue: if the organizations appointed with the responsibility of reporting factual information have been and continue to be observed reporting misinformation then they are quite obviously not informing the public."

Again, why is this an issue? Why is it the media's job to inform the public? They are doing what the people want, which is why people choose to watch and pay for dishonest media (eg Fox News). If anything, the viewers, not the media, are the problem.

"By the post hoc, ergo propter hoc reasoning used by Con earlier; they would be dividing the country.""

Explain. How is this topical?

"the presence of various online sources of news media, readily available to the public allow voters to become more informed than years past"

This is true but irrelevant. Although people have the ability to be informed (factcheck sites, etc) many choose not to, which is not a problem in a democracy. Only elected officials need to factually know about all the issues.

"argument against the notion of propaganda in the media"

People without a pre-existing bias will be unaffected by the propaganda

As this is the final round of this debate I will attempt to clarify the topic of contention, the arguments presented, and a final rebuttal of Con's statements. To begin, it should be noted that my opponent has concluded that propaganda is intended to misinform its audience. Because of this, propaganda is able to create a less informed electorate, which in itself is a logical assertion of the constraints placed on the democratic process. Since this is a pre-determined and agreed upon theory, the burden of disprove rested on Con's shoulders. Logically if an electorate is less knowledgeable concerning the policies of candidates seeking election they will not have the capacity to properly determine if those specific policies will result in negative or positive effects. Thus while determining which candidate to select their decision making ability will be hindered, this is how democracy is limited. This is evident by my reference above: Romney was intentionally misleading the public by claiming that Obama had made it easier for individuals to acquire food stamps, this was of course false.

Con's singular argument concerning approval polls, fails to take into account, the glaringly obvious fact, that the individuals surveyed are victims of media manipulation. This of course brings their level of determination into dispute and does not serve as a relevant, objective, or unbiased indication of the state of democracy. Yet, the premise of Con's argument seems to rest on this notion that if the democratic system had failed, the approval polls would reflect this circumstance, which is simply false. To expand on this, again, Glenn Greenwald remarked that individuals are aware of media manipulation; however, they avoid reflecting that they themselves could be the victims of this manipulation. Furthermore, cognitive behavioral studies have shown that thinking dispositions such as need for cognition and actively open-minded thinking have been associated with belief bias and the magnitude of framing effects. Individuals higher in need for cognition and actively open-minded thinking displayed less belief bias and less susceptibility to framing effects, thus providing evidence contrary to Con's opinion that, "propaganda misinforms only people who want to be misinformed and are looking for an excuse to be misinformed."

It should also be noted that Con's arguments are guilty of post hoc illogical reasoning; that is they indicate correlation not causation; the mere fact that one precedes the other does not indicate any cause between the variables. To continue along the lines of false assertions, under the banner of "Pro's arguments" Con has for the second time misrepresented my statements. The context in which I referred to income and education was clearly labeled not to be used as an argument. Con posed several questions, which I will address:

1. The logical fallacy of, "...what is wrong with manipulating the public, if the public wants to be manipulated?"

It is presumptuous to claim that "the public wants to be manipulated" since there is no accurate method to determine if this is true. Con is attempting to argue that media manipulation can only occur as a result of public consent, which is an absolutely absurd statement with no logical premise to support it.

2. "Again, why is this an issue? Why is it the media's job to inform the public? They are doing what the people want, which is why people choose to watch and pay for dishonest media."

The news media's role is to inform the public just as a doctor’s role is to aid the sick and unhealthy; this seems a fatuous question as the topic of the debate is the role of propaganda in the media and its effect on the democratic process. Con's lack of knowledge on this topic is quite obvious, even more so is the lack of research done to establish a relevant argument, which leads one to then question his/her motive for accepting this debate.

3. "This is true but irrelevant. Although people have the ability to be informed (factcheck sites, etc) many choose not to, which is not a problem in a democracy. Only elected officials need to factually know about all the issues."

This, again, is an illogical argument: all theories on decision making processes involve the acquisition of knowledge or information, generally referred to as the communication phase but Con does not mention any related evidence.

Con has yet to make a single relevant argument; my opponent has relied on his personal opinion to assert his belief that propaganda in the media does not affect democracy simply because approval polls do not deviate dramatically year to year. Not only is this unrelated to the topic of debate but it is an oversimplified response to an issue Con has displayed little understanding of.

"the burden of disprove rested on Con's shoulders" nope - Con agrees that "propaganda is able to create a less informed [aka misinformed] electorate"

"Logically [...] democracy is limited" nope - the topic is not self-evident; Pro must present evidence and "logically" cannot fiat that he is right and wins the debate.

"Con's singular argument" as opposed to Pro's lack of an argument/metric to assess the public's opinions/desires

"fails to take into account [...] that the individuals surveyed are victims of media manipulation" Nope (polls are statistically sound, etc; this has been addressed before)

"if the democratic system had failed, the approval polls would reflect this circumstance, which is simply false" Incorrect and irrelevant - Pro has not explained or provided any evidence for why this false. Also, Pro has not provided an alternative method to assess whether or not the democratic system has failed (besides fiat), so Con's method must be preferred over Pro's lack of a method.

"individuals [...] avoid reflecting that they [are] victims of this manipulation" Nope - if "media manipulation" does not cause people to act differently, then it does not exist or has no effect, making it irrelevant (and not bad).

"evidence contrary to Con's opinion that "propaganda misinforms only people who want to be misinformed and are looking for an excuse to be misinformed."" Nope - Pro ignores the argument that propaganda pieces from opposing sides will cancel each other out unless people want to believe in one side more than another instead of searching for the truth. The evidence does not disagree with this argument.

"indicate correlation not causation" A positive correlation between media and approval ratings suggests that media does not cause approval ratings to be lower or limit democracy, which is all that Con has to show. Media could have no effect.

1. The logical fallacy of, "...what is wrong with manipulating the public, if the public wants to be manipulated?"

Pro said: It is presumptuous to claim that "the public wants to be manipulated" since there is no accurate method to determine if this is true. Con is attempting to argue that media manipulation can only occur as a result of public consent, which is an absolutely absurd statement with no logical premise to support it.

Response: There is a method to determine if "the public wants to be manipulated": see if the public pays attention to manipulative media. In the absence of coercion, people's wants/desires will coincide with their actions. The government is not forcing anyone to view government-owned media - people are free to go to factcheck.org, etc.

2. "Again, why is this an issue? Why is it the media's job to inform the public? They are doing what the people want, which is why people choose to watch and pay for dishonest media."

Pro said: The news media's role is to inform the public just as a doctor's role is to aid the sick and unhealthy; this seems a fatuous question as the topic of the debate is the role of propaganda in the media and its effect on the democratic process. Con's lack of knowledge on this topic is quite obvious, even more so is the lack of research done to establish a relevant argument, which leads one to then question his/her motive for accepting this debate.

Response: Ignoring the ad-hom attacks, different doctors have different roles. Some perform eye surgery, some perform arm surgery, etc. Similarly, different media sources have different goals. Some focus on fact checking (factcheck.org), some focus on entertainment (television shows), some focus on unbiased reporting, some are okay with propaganda (fox news), and some focus on reviewing other sources of media. So, the media's role is not to inform the public. It's role is, according to dictionary.com, to reach and influence people widely (http://bit.ly...), nothing more, nothing less.

3. "This is true but irrelevant. Although people have the ability to be informed (fact check sites, etc) many choose not to, which is not a problem in a democracy. Only elected officials need to factually know about all the issues."

Pro said: This, again, is an illogical argument: all theories on decision making processes involve the acquisition of knowledge or information, generally referred to as the communication phase but Con does not mention any related evidence.

Response: In a democracy, people are not forced to stay away from fact checking sites. If they choose not to acquire knowledge or information, then, in the absence of coercion, it must be because they do not want to acquire knowledge or information. Since there are plenty of publicly available fact checking sites out there, it follows that people have the ability to become more informed, but do not want to (and choose not to). In fact, people always have the ability to become more informed. Basically, democracy is alive and well in America right now.

Nobodycares vote was brought to you by the Vote Against Noobs Association (VANA), the Association Wanting To See Low Win Percentages (AWTOLWP), and the Nobody Cares About 3-Year Inactive Accounts Association (NCATYIAA) telling you to vote against 00 so that he loses all of his debates.

Another disappointing debate, arguments were hindered by disregarding the audience. Con consistently declared that Pro must abide by certain points, not agreed upon before debate, or Pro would automatically lose the debate; poor conduct.

This was a painful debate to read, Con was transfixed on his "Approval Polls" theory, even though its relation to this debate was fairly weak. I had read Brian Britt's article and Greenwald's piece certainly provided a useful contrast Con made no use of either, Pro's arguments were not as thorough as they should have been. The frustration between the two was quite palpable, I am surprised an argument did not ensue.

However, the most frustrating point, for me, was Con's rejection of evidence: Con stated that if people wanted they could visit factcheck.org, even after Pro had used two sources of evidence indicating the opposite. Con's arguments were very weak and rarely made any sense, I believe Pro left the readers to form the relation between being uninformed which causes a discrepancy in general candidacy appeal and the US system of democracy, which may cost him the debate despite his superior performance compared to Con.

I was never quite sure if Con was serious or just "trolling", I'm still torn on that question.However, a basic premise for all debates is if you're going to refute claims supported by evidence, you had better provide a great deal of evidence for your argument, if not you can not expect yours to be taken seriously; Con argued and refuted but provided almost no evidence at all. Victory should go to Pro...

Reasons for Voting: The topic debated set by the pro is "Has propaganda in the US media created limitations on democracy?" and then he goes on to claim that the media has compromised democracy by leaving people uniformed. That however doesnt mean democracy has been compromised, it just means the outcome of who is elected has become compromised, which is different then what the resolution claims, as con actually pointed out. Con though really shot himself in the foot when he tried to argue that making people uninformed unifies them, making it a good thing.....

In the later rounds the pro and con went back in forth arguing about whether or not an uninformed voter base corrupts democracy or not. It is in my opinion that the media only compromises the best possible outcome of democracy, not the act of people voting for who they want. I give arguments to the con even though I agree the media should be held more accountable for what they broadcast. I do give sources to the pro though since he used them more efficiently. Conduct and grammar were pretty even.

Reasons for voting decision: I haven't read any of the texts that Pro recommended; he needed to summarize them in debate. Perhaps as a result of this I couldn't really understand the connection between an uninformed electorate and limitations on democracy. Con's point that the right to vote against your best interests is consistent with democracy was clear and sound.

Reasons for voting decision: I do believe that propaganda has created limitations on democracy. However, this debate did not do much in swaying my opinion one way or another. Both sides got bogged down because neither sought to define "best interest", which I deemed a key term in this debate.
In the end, this term was so important to me in figuring out exactly what either of you were advocating that the lack of a clear definition of what constituted whose best interest was severely detracting to the debate. No opinion.